jonah

No worries, I think he was injured all the time anyhow!

And I don't remember saying they played in that game - the point was that NP brought in 4 defenders to try to shore up the defence as a whole. In fact, it is you who hasn't checked your details since there was only 1 change in that line-up from the one which beat Leicester 1-0 earlier in the week - a positive one in Powell being passed fit to return in defence. Combined with those players we already had, it's not great to see the focus on defence resulting in a 5-0 defeat is it - presumably that's why NP called it "embarassing and unacceptable" [and actually I liked what he said about that performance, but that's a different story]. It's easy to take a single result in isolation, but you might as well say the same about the severely weakened team GB took to Wolves that we thought would get a hiding - yet we won that one 6-0.

Maybe the excitement of having Britain's "hottest young prospect" in charge made you forget NP's first signing: http://www.skysports.com/football/player/0,19754,11681_6743,00.html

Well obviously I don't consider them "coherent" - saying NP had an 18 month contract is nonsense given there was no mutuality of obligation beyond the 14 games - it could be terminated for no reason, even if we stayed up. He could have had a 250 year contract if that clause was in there. Trying to claim it was due to the EGM is incoherent too given that was called after the contract was signed. It was not a rolling contract as rolling contracts have notice periods. So sorry but I've seen no coherent explanation of why NP wasn't tied down by Crouch - in fact, NP's termination clause is just as weird, I assume he asked for that to match our own one... so we have a conditionless, no-notice break-clause after 14 games, he has a conditionless, no-notice break clause after 14 games. It's a 14 game contract, end of story!

Did the Austrians only start heavily drinking schnapps after you arrived Alpine? Again, you look at things the wrong way round - it's not a question of being pro-Lowe, it's a question of being anti- things that destroy SFC. Hence why I tried to warn about Wilde for several months... by the time he took power there was nothing else anyone could do other than wait for the implosion. Sadly, the "Anyone-But-Lowe" brigade have learnt absolutely nothing and are on the march again - I have no problem with Lowe leaving the club for good, provided there is somebody better to take over. Wilde was not better, nor were Hone, Hoos, Oldknow, Dulieu, Trant, Crouch, Corbett or McMenemy, despite the claims of the drama-queens and failed bean-counters on here that it was easy to simply "hire a CEO" to do the job (ho ho). Anyway, this thread is about the question of why Crouch failed to back his own judgement by offering NP a proper contract which extended beyond 14 games... I've yet to see a coherent response to that other than it was either because he had no faith in him and it was a complete gamble, or that there was another underlying reason such as lack of support from Barclays.

I don't doubt there will have to be blame apportioned, and I don't doubt it will ignore the financial mess we started the season with. I also don't doubt it will all be RL's fault. I don't think it's right, I think it's totally blinkered, but I don't doubt it for one minute! How could it ever *not* be RL's fault? As usual, nobody even mentions MW who is chairman of SFC - surely the football direction is his remit, not RL's? FWIW I actually think NP would probably have done about the same as JP. I think the football would have been less pretty, but I don't imagine anyone would have complained. That last bit was a joke ;-)

Thank God today's fans weren't around in the early 70s - the cheap option of an ex-guardsman as manager, part-time unqualified chairmen lording it up on their Scottish estates, relegation from the top flight, 2 years struggling in Division 2, dodgy share transactions, failure to deliver a new stadium... no doubt today's fans would have hounded out TB, JC and LM within a fortnight back then and we wouldn't have had the 8 years of success that occurred during our 124 year existence. [cut-and-paste response for missing the point: "How can you compare RL to...."]

Well obviously that would depend on what the other 10 results were. That's why league positions are determined by points, not by number of defeats. Given he has a weaker squad and the drama-queens out in force against the club again, I would say matching NP's points-per-game record would be a reasonable achievement - ie. NP got 16/14, so Wotte's ppg would mean getting 20 or 21 from his 18 matches. That would give us 46 or 47 points - probably not enough to stay up. So Wotte will probably have to do better than NP, with worse players, to keep us up this year. Thank goodness he has the support of the fans eh...

Firstly, if you believe he had no money then blame the chairman at the time who shipped out Rasiak and Skacel on loan and then tied the purse-strings. But of course in fact we did get 5 loan players in - Wright (thanks to Webster), and then Pearce, Pericard, Lucketti and Perry. Not a hugely succesful set of old-timers there really - 4 new defenders and we still got tonked 5-0 at Hull - clearly NP still struggled despite changing half the team. Maybe that's why Leicester fans' response to his appointment was "muted" rather than "alpinesque"?

Oh yes, of course... slight difference though in that Wotte had previously interviewed to be the manager, so not just a "lazy" promotion of a completely new-to-management 1st team coach.

Well GM, we knew he didn't have enough money coming in, that's why he couldn't afford to buy all of Hunt and Wiseman's shares and had to charm his way to getting options over them instead. And Merlion didn't quite reach his projected turnover of "in excess of £30m" either... Just to spell it out, given you are being polite not mentioning it, the only shareholder in Merlion is Mr Wilde so no prizes for guessing who took home that money (tax free). Oh, and that salary was "only" £97,931 in 2004, so it had already doubled the year before it quintupled. I wonder who sits on his remuneration committee? :-) Given that there were no profits to distribute as dividends (previously issued in excess of his stated policy of "no more than 50% of taxable profit" anyway), it would seem that was the only way to get the cash out - lucky Merlion coincidentally managed to increase their overdraft by £1m too eh! One of the more interesting parts of the accounts is that all the non-execs resigned on 1st October - as that was 9 weeks after the 2005 accounts were signed off, and given Wilde's issues with attending the UK too frequently, I would guess that was the date of the Merlion AGM. Maybe they took issue with that 10-fold salary increase in the middle of a terrible year for the company? And it's interesting to see they weren't replaced, so much for practicising the Corporate Governance he preached about SFC! And this year the Managing Director and Finance Director both resigned on 10th October... this year's AGM? Perhaps they didn't fancy explaining away why the accounts were over a year late. Anyway, Merlion are left with just Wilde and one other Director now (the most recently appointed one) - they are even using a secretaries company to act as Company Secretary! Ha ha.

I thought that was Paul Ince? No wait, Simon Grayson? Or is it Ady Boothroyd? No, hang on, it's Simon Davey? Seriously alpine, you've got to stop believing everything that Chris McMenemy tells you.

Yes you would have thought that's how it would be, it does seem rather strange having a completely free break clause - that's why it wasn't really a contract at all, it's about mutuality of obligation and there was none. Anyway, I wonder how this thread would have been reading if Leicester were struggling in mid-table... "You can't praise Lowe for not renewing NP, it was obvious he wasn't up to it even with better players, we couldn't win in 7 attempts away from home and even JP has won 5 half way through the season... including 2 of the top 4 teams!" "Lowe didn't choose to sack NP knowing he was crap, his contract just expired... read it on the website FFS" "NP was crap, we knew it, Leicester knew, even that mong RL knew it." "You just don't get it do you, any half-competent chairman would have forced the EGM earlier, got rid of NP and got the new man in *before* the end of the season... Lowe ****ed it up again". "Well as I said when NP first arrived, he was the solution to the short-term problem but clearly not a long-term solution. Our top priority was always an experienced and competent manager who would hit the ground running and who could lead this Club so getting rid of NP was obvious but taking on JP instead was a mistake and clearly Lowe screwed this up (again) :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:"

Ahh thank you, I had obviously tried to blank out the whole thing! I did remember seeing the Leicester highlights that night and thinking how unlucky they had been not to win.

I must be, who was it we were relying on?

I don't know if the problem is width so much as ability - all the top teams play 4-5-1 (or 4-3-3 according to the PR departments!), so in theory they're all playing with extra width. But it seems to me that the demise of the traditional winger over the last couple of decades has led to a dearth of winger talent... to be fair to him, JP talked a lot about needing the width and how important Holmes and Smith were (but not Dyer, go figure). Yet even when we play with both of them they seem incapable of getting to the by-line - and what use is having width if you don't do that? Telfer and FF used to do a good job between them, but that was down to Telfer's fitness - James looks like he can do a similar job helping from fullback but then he gets left exposed as the midfield never seems to cover his runs forward. Correction, midfield never seem to cover full-stop! I also wonder whether it's a lack of pace... wingers always seem "tricky" nowadays rather than "pacey".

It's interesting that the break clause was not conditional upon relegation - does that not imply to you that there was a second reason that unconditional break clause was inserted? Like not having the bank's support? I can't remember any manager having break clauses in their contract that were unconditional, quite bizarre... I would love to hear Crouch's explanation for this (I assume he's not explained how it came about?). I think this is a rather selective view of our position at the time (although I appreciate this place is nearly as anti-Burley as it is anti-Lowe ;-)) - when Burley left at the end of January we were comfortably mid-table, unbeaten in 5 away games (see below), safely through 2 rounds of the FA Cup and scoring goals. We can ignore the calamatous month with D&G in charge (thanks Leon), but with NP we struggled in all departments apart from "work rate". No wins in 7 away games including a 5-0 tonking at Hull (who we beat 4-0 at home under Burley) and 20 minutes away from relegation which was out of our hands anyway. Whilst I think NP has done a great job at Leicester in a lower league, the evidence of his time here shows nothing in terms of promise beyond the black and white fact we didn't eventually get relegated thanks to those Leicester strikers missing 3 sitters in the last 5 minutes of their final game and us finally scoring 3 goals in our final match in charge, a common occurrence under Burley yet NP had averaged less than a goal a game.

You're right, it wasn't helpful. Equally it wasn't helpful that Crouch refused to acknowledge that a majority of shareholders request he handed over control - if he had just kept it internal and agreed to hand over once the season was "finished" (ie. we were safe), nobody would even have needed to know and there would have been no disruption. He chose to ignore the wishes of the majority despite it being absolute and unavoidable, and hence they had to threaten an EGM, just like a squatter has to be threatened with a court order. And now he's doing it again by trying to oppose the majority who are running the club. He's like a spoilt child waving his wad around demanding things are done his way - he needs to put up or shut up. That would be fine, but I don't think they do - if that were the case fans would be telling Crouch and Corbett to put a sock in it until the season finishes and sort out their squabbles in the boardroom over the summer. Come to that, fans would be telling Crouch he was no better than Lowe and we don't want him back either. But I refer you back to Duncan's method of appraisal above - that's what most fans work on sadly.

If you remember, actually, Lowe and Wilde wanted an immediate handover after the season finished. They also had a clear majority so it was a fait a compli, it wasn't rabble-rousing of the lowest order trying to remove the majority shareholders - the problem was the minority holders wouldn't bow to the majority (there's a surprise eh, SFC speciality) so they were forced to threaten an EGM. That was all conducted in the boadroom, not on local radio or via demos. Personally I find the 2 things totally different.

I said when Wilde first came in that it should all be done in the summer, and I said the same when Lowe returned - hence I would say the same now. There was a difference in the first 2 situations in that the first time around it all hinged on Crouch and he dillied and dallied for a long time before deciding who to back. Last year there was a clear majority and as I remember it there was a quick, clean changeover once we finished the season. I don't remember a load of unfounded rumours being spread on Lowe's behalf when Crouch was chairman? And I don't remember him or his backers on local radio demanding fans join in a protest before the home matches as we fought against relegation? If people want the boardroom changed again, fine - buy some shares and vote. But do it in the summer and try to have the good grace to accept the result if you lose - I didn't want Wilde, but I didn't spit my dummy, boycott the club and spread malicious rumours or start demos. Crouch and Corbett have been voted out, rather than rely upon manipulation of the fans they should fight their battles in the boardroom... for example, maybe MC could actually buy a couple of shares if it means so much to her?

The problem is Snowballs2, it's exactly fans like FF, MC and LC who are trying to destabilise the club at the most important time in our history by using their positions of influence to meet their own personal agendas. The absolute number 1 criteria for SFC is to avoid administration. The absolute number 2 criteria is to avoid relegation. Somewhere down in 1,327th place is to spread rumours and encourage fans to demo before a home match.

You have GOT to be joking, have you had your fingers in your ears for the last 3 years Duncan?! I have had more than enough to say about Wilde since the day he turned up with his half-baked manifesto in which he'd spelt the name of the club wrong. Seriously, I cannot believe anyone is unclear about what I've thought of Wilde for the last 3 years. You really just don't seem capable of understanding that it's possible to assess people on their abiltiies rather than your bizarre assesment criteria of: "Do they like Rupert Lowe?" Wilde 2006 - hates Lowe = Good Wilde 2008 - backs Lowe = Bad Corbett - hates Lowe = Good Wiseman 1996 - backs Lowe, cheap shares = Bad Wiseman 2006 - hates Lowe = Good It's comical!

If it's one person regularly dumping their shares then they are stupid (can't rule out Crouch then, ho ho) as they are moving the price downwards. They should have sold through the house brokers. Hence it seems more logical it's CFD/spreadbet sellers. Re the insider dealing, there's no real grey area - if you have inside information and trade *based on that info* then you're in trouble. The Directors also have their own Model Code Of Conduct to which they are supposed to adhere regarding buying and selling shares - these were broken once when Paul Thompson sold shares to Wilde without first disclosing the sale to the chairman, a blatant and deliberate breach (he claimed he hadn't done it in a boardroom meeting).

I actually liked the idea and think the integration of academy players is a good idea provided we have enough senior pros to blend them with - I think any neutral would say we played great football - I think he was pretty unlucky to be honest given the weak squad he had, we could easily have had another 6 or 9 points and have been mid-table. In hindsight JP probably went for too many youngsters - now Wotte is moving back towards older players. But I'm sure RL has interfered with both and told them to do that ;-) I think we're doomed if we don't even give the bloke a chance. I think he has said he right things, has pinpointed parts of JP's plans which he thinks were wrong (lack of adaptability re formations), and has got us scoring again. Was there someone better available that we could afford to bring in who would want to come to a club in this state (financially and in terms of "support")? I don't know, quite possibly not.

Duncan, please don't come over all holier than thou, you have as sharp a tongue as anyone and for someone who just libelled Lowe in your first post and was relatively vicious on the other list we were on, I think you ought to be able to take what you give with less of a whimper! As for not remembering me posting these details, I posted them in response to you on that other list, I have posted them on saintslist, and I posted them on S4E. I wonder how you missed them? Again, you seem to have just ignored everything I typed. Could you explain this "shady money" wrt Lowe? He bought shares in an undervalued company and agreed a reverse-takeover. All above board and legit. Oh dear, so basically you forgive them all their treachery because they also dislike Lowe like you? If you don't want them to have nifluence then you should not have given your backing to Wilde, nor should you be giving your backing to Crouch who has no plans to remove their influence AFAIA. I find your appraisal of MC very worrying - she was more culpable than most when it came to jumping on Wilde's white steed. How can somebody that negligent, nay incompetent, be suitable as a Director? No he's not. Never has, never will. He's just a gobby bloke with a lot of money but not enough to buy a footbal club outright. But Duncan you say one thing and do another - you claim you criticise all parties and take on facts, yet still maintain Lowe made "shady money", forgive Wiseman & Co because they now dislike Lowe, still backed Wilde all the way, and still back someone lilke Crouch. As for the comment about Lowe's mistakes, well I guess like your comment at the AGM asking Lowe when he would accept blame for relegation (was that this century or last?), you seem incapable of remembering anything people have said that doesn't fit in with your agenda. That's called re-writing history.